Walking the Orwellian tightrope

Technology has numerous implications on our culture. I will try to tackle them from a privacy perspective and present some of my various thoughts on the subject. This post will also give some examples of technology already in use today.
Life in the 21st century has just begun, but thus far we can conclude this: We are about to sacrifice essential liberties.

We humans absolutely adore abstractions. Without them life as we know it would be inconceivably complex and just not practical. Take for example the spoiled parasite brat of a college student living at home with his/her parent(s). Food automagically puts itself on the table and clean clothes are in some mysterious way delivered to the room. Not to mention the money. Don't disturb the delicate balance. If it works this way, why even bother to try figuring out the whys and the hows? Fucking brat. Sorry, I let myself get carried away. In your face, people of higher socioeconomic status.
Anyway, we all see things as abstractions and rightfully so. We shouldn't have to care about how a car engine works or how these letters appear on the screen as I type them on the keyboard. It's not putting anyone in danger. The potential danger arises when this type of thinking is carried over to personal and private information in general and surveillance in particular.

Surveillance has a way of working desensitisingly. On a regular stroll around in the city many not-always-so-candid security cameras watch our slightest move. One can not take for granted that this footage is not stored, and since no guarantees about retention can be given, it becomes potentially disturbing.
When people are informed of this privacy intrusion, they have a tendency to view it as a mere bagatelle. They have nothing to hide, they figure. Newsflash, fuckers: this argument is irrelevant to the discussion. If you have nothing to hide, why do you have curtains in your house or lock yourself in the bathroom when nature calls? Why do we even have clothes?
To justify this seemingly outrageous comparison, I have to present some quite convincing arguments, right? I mean, what could possibly justify THAT? Alright, here goes: You have a basic right to be left alone. It's just as simple as that, and I also believe it is one of the basic human rights endorsed by most governments that call their countries free. Privacy in a nutshell.
Without being aware of it, we are leaving digital footsteps that easily can be used (and misused). Take the relatively mature technology of cellular phones, for example. It uses the most ingenious system of triangulation in order to work. It's a fantastic piece of technology. For the service provider to be able to effectively relay a call to you they must know where you are, or at least know your vicinity. Doesn't sound to illogical, does it? If we were all carrying around these long wires connected to the back of our mobile phones, the illusion would disappear.
For practical reasons, the data regarding which grid you are in is stored. How this is done is not always clear to us. It has however been proven that this data has relevancy to justice when it has been subpoenaed out and used in court as evidence. The main concern here is that you have no control whatsoever of to whom this piece of information is available, or through which channels it is divulged.

The Internet was, and was not, created with the integrity of (personal) information in mind, depending on which one of the meanings of the word integrity you use. A special case of the Internet is, what we usually mean by the Internet - the World Wide Web. Plain old web surfing, that is.
Some people might, for purposes beyond our comprehension (there are many of them, like marketing research, (anti)terrorism, just might throw in blackmailing too), want to gain knowledge of which websites we visit or don't visit. Your surf habits are no one's business but your own. Your spouse's on the other hand...

It's a highly personal opinion, but I find the way people divulge personal information on the Internet alarmingly careless. One of the properties of digital information is that it is 'sticky', that is, once on the Internet it is unlikely to ever disappear. Sorry J.P., those nude pictures will keep circulating until doomsday.
Nevertheless, as fate would have it, we will live our lives on the Internet. It's a natural development and nothing can be done to reverse, let alone stall or retard the process. True, some people will continue to live their lives as they always have, but as time goes by it will become increasingly difficult for those of unwilling mind to oppose the menacing technology. They will grow out of touch with the surrounding world.
To cite an idea of how the world will look like in a few years, look at South Korea and its hugely successful Internet communities. We're getting there, and it's going fast.

The collective opinion can be summarised as wanting more surveillance, not less. Don't worry, whether you want it or not, you will get more surveillance. It's safe to say that people hold a lot of erroneous beliefs. One of the most wide-spread ones (apart from religion, which probably will, if God is willing, be addressed in a later post): surveillance does not equals security. Everyone wants to be safe, that's just a natural human thing. It's however ludicrous that the aforementioned outcry has arisen out of a need for protection against a highly vague, faceless (no matter how you put it) enemy, namely terrorism. It's fucking bullshit (that is, by the way, the name of a good entertainment show that has addressed some of these issues). Fearmongering, power hunger and misinformation is the real cause. Be a PATRIOT - just say no. Don't fear the acronyms, because there is more to come.

Like I said, I had been trying to avoid the acronym mush this far, but now it's time to take a spoonful. ALF. Automated Law Enforcement. The idea behind this whole concept (apart from alluding to an 80s sitcom) is to let automated surveillance systems decide and deliver (e.g. fine, electroshock, mark someone for death, etc.) punishments for those disobeying the law. It saves money, it is said. Well, I can't argue against that, but I think that the costs will outweigh the potential benefits.
Systems are in use today to regulate the maximum speed of buses. How does this work? Well, some sort of GPS system is reporting the current speed to a mainframe, that in turn cross-references that with the maximum speed limit of the area. If speed > maximum speed then kill the fuel supply to the engine. But hey! What happens if I'm overtaking someone? Wouldn't that jeopardise the drivers' safety even more than someone driving a couple of miles per hour over the limit? This might very well sound like an appeal to ignorance, but if you have an answer, please enlighten me.
It's also interesting to see the results of the related systems now in use throughout the airports in the U.S.. People are barred from flying just because "the computer says so". It's no use arguing with a computer, they just do as they're told, at least for the time being.
All of this is creepy, to say the least. If I were labeled as a criminal by my own government I'd sure as hell want to know the reason. But you can't, it's a matter of national security that you are kept ignorant. I'm concerned that a massive arbitrary blacklisting of "uncomfortable" individuals will become more common in the future.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, so (according to) Juvenal. Namedropping aside, this is not an unwarranted question. As long as humans are humans, humans will do human-like things. Like indulging their curiosity. I wouldn't want some Peeping Tom outside my window overlooking the act of physical lovemaking as I acknowledge yet another member of mine and Mr. Reed's immensely huge and rabid female fanbase. It goes without saying that you do things in private for a reason.
The problem of who watches the watchmen will not disappear just like that. I find it unthinkable to submit or give up my privacy to other, ordinary people. On the other hand if, like in one of the possible endings of the game Deus Ex, the world was ruled by a super-AI like Helios, I would gladly submit. Sadly, I don't see that happening in a near future.

Hopefully I'm not sounding too much like a prophet of doom or a conspiracy nut. The people of the future will probably look back and laugh at those who said the end of days was at hand. What really concerns me is that the balance of power will tip over in the direction of government and that this will result in police states where personal privacy is just an empty phrase, that the conversation subject of privacy will result in the same type of laughter that breaks out whenever the Chinese government claims that its citizens are free.
It's a delicate balance act to walk the Orwellian tightrope. New technology has enabled those in power to cling on to it more efficiently. What people need is awareness, to watch out so that we don't prematurely and quietly trade our freedom for meaningless comfort. Orwell wasn't a crank.